Discover more from Tessa Fights Robots
When Bullying Comes from Love...
I had no plans to post anything tonight but my sense of logic is screaming for redemption.
So, there is all this new terrible bullying around the medical product of the day: the DOJ opinion, Cuomo, Deblasio, and so on.
Why is the push for the product so unusually aggressive?
For the sake of going with the internal logic of the push, let's please take it at face value. Let’s assume that the politicians really are concerned about people’s health (at least to the degree that they don’t want bodies in the streets), that the medical product works and has been proven safe both short-term and long-term, and that the politicians are getting legitimately irritated with the selfish citizens who don’t understand what’s good and thus are delaying everybody’s glorious exit out of the pandemic.
Let’s just assume that all this bullying is for our own health and a proper economic recovery—and while the politicians are using extremely aggressive methods, it’s for public good.
Then… I am confused.
If our health is so important, and if all of this bullying is to make sure that we don’t die, then why is it that before the medical product became available—and when the official story was that there was no treatment for this disease and getting it was a near death sentence—why is it that any doctor who had used own thinking and experience to figure how to treat this dangerous disease—who had saved precious lives against all odds and was super eager to share their seemingly working method with the world for other doctors to at least be aware of it—any such doctor experienced an immediate and sharp fall from grace? Why?
The therapies that came under severe coordinated censorship generally had exceptionally clean safety profiles—and in some countries, were over the counter, like aspirin is in the United States. Given the amount of drugs with much more threatening safety profiles that a lot of Americans are routinely put on, that’s a little odd.
So my perhaps naive question is… within the internal logic of the “health” narrative, how can that heavy censorship of potential therapies be explained? I am really trying here.
It can, however, be effortlessly explained within the logic of commerce. Within the logic of commerce, an existence of a working therapy would have made it legally impossible to issue an emergency use authorization for the medical product of interest. The existence of an effective therapy would have blocked the way for the EUA, which would then have forced the process of developing a v-word into a “normal” course, with years of testing for long-term effects, and the ROI infinitely delayed.
But then we go back to the clean “health” narrative, and again, I don’t know how to explain such unusual censorship. I really don’t because most people, when facing a possibility of dying from a horrible disease, would likely want to at least try some kind of an early treatment, even if there are no guarantees. Most people would want to know about what’s on the table so that they can talk about options with their doctor and make a private choice, based on everything they know, the way patients have been doing for decades. And if the only other option is dying or getting mysterious long COVID—why not let doctors at least try prevent the suffering?
And why is it that the censorship was so bad that pharmacists in some states were ordered to block prescriptions by actual medical doctors, you know, the people who went to medical school and everything—and who presumably are professionals?
And why was a Twitter account of an entire medical publication deleted for posting one positive article about a potential COVID treatment with a super clean safety profile—while the two leading medical journals that published a highly publicized but fraudulent and quickly retracted study “proving” that a treatment was no good, did not experience any censorship whatsoever?
On a side note, you know what would convince a bunch of “skeptics”?
If the manufacturers became legally liable for injuries, short-term or long-term. If they had any legal responsibility at all for their product.
That, now, would be far more convincing than doughnuts (another healthy choice, thank you) and lotteries. And certainly far more convincing than threats.
Because who doesn’t enjoy being bullied for their own good? As an old Russian saying goes, “He beats me… now, that’s love!”